R/CR.MA/14757/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 14757 of 2026 ========================================================== SUBHASH HIRARAM KERARAM GODARA (BISHNOI) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR DINESHKUMAR M CHAUDHARY(8734) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NISARG D SHAH(7299) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR SUNIL H PRAJAPATI(8350) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 30/07/2026 ORDER [1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent- State. [2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11191011250376 of 2025 registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences under Sections 8(C), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. [3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is behind the bars since 26.02.2026 and charge-sheet is filed and nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and he has been arraigned as an accused based on the statement of co-accused though nothing is recovered from the conscious possession of the present applicant and the co-accused from whose conscious possession contraband was recovered has been released on bail by the coordinate Bench and therefore, the applicant R/CR.MA/14757/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 is required to be released on bail on the ground of parity. [4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application on the ground that the present applicant is the supplier and he has called for the contraband from Uttar Pradesh and if released on bail then the possibility of tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that the applicant is supplied the contraband through co-accused Rajeshwari and from conscious possession of said Rajeshwari (accused No.2 as per the FIR) and accused No.1, contraband mephedrone in commercial quantity was recovered and therefore, even considering the rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act and since the applicant is hailing from Rajasthan, applicant may not be released on bail since possibility of flight risk of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Further, the applicant is not entitled to claim parity since in the matter of co-accused, rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act were not taken into consideration. Hence, it is requested that present application for regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence be dismissed. [5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of her abscondence; (iv) character R/CR.MA/14757/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered. [6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Going through the record, it appears that, (i) the present applicant is arraigned as an accused on the basis of statement of co-accused however, no any evidence is collected to link the present applicant with alleged offence; (ii) Not only that, nothing is recovered from the conscious possession of the present applicant and the co-accused from whose conscious possession, contraband is recovered is already released by the coordinate Bench of this Court though the contraband recovered was in commercial quantity and (iii) Rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act have not been discussed in the said order enlarging the co-accused on bail. Hence, this Court is not blindly relying on the said order. The said contraband substance mephedrone was supplied to the present applicant by the co-accused. Considering the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it is very difficult to presume that if the applicant is released on bail, then he would not involve in commission of similar type of offence. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala etc. vs. Rajesh etc. reported in AIR 2020 SC 721, wherein considering the provisions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, it has been held that since the offence involves recovery of the narcotic drug in excess of its commercial quantity, the Court is required to record its satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and that the applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail and the Court is required to record a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is R/CR.MA/14757/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 a sine qua non for grant of bail to the accused under the NDPS Act. However, considering the allegations levelled against the present applicant, applicant is the alleged supplier of 357 Gram 750 Milligram of Mephedrone worth Rs.35,77,500/- which is recovered from the joint possession of co-accused Kamlesh and Rajeshwari and they are released on bail however, this Court is considering the present application independently on its own merits vis-a-vis the role attributed to the present applicant. [6.1] When a specific query was put to the Investigating Officer Mr. B.S. Jhala, PSI, Ahmedabad Crime Branch who remained present before this Court during the course of hearing of present bail application, as to what evidence has been collected against the present applicant to connect him with the co-accused Nos.1 and 2, the IO has failed to reply and then, upon receiving updates from his Writer / Constable through learned APP, he has submitted that CDR is available and mobile phone of accused is also seized. When second query was put to him to show the CDR and contact details with co- accused, he again failed to point out any material with regard to collection of such evidence and he has submitted that through whatsapp and online payment is made and chats are deleted from the mobile phone. In aforesaid background, specific another query as to whether mobile phone is sent to the FSL to retrieve such deleted chats? is posed to the said IO has shown ignorance and then replied, he was not aware and then subsequently replied that mobile phone is not sent to the FSL for the purpose of investigation. Thus, perusing the investigation papers, this Court is of considered opinion that, it is very sorry state of affair that the Investigating Officer, who is working in Crime Branch, is not conversant with the investigation papers and has failed miserably in investigating the offence effectively and to R/CR.MA/14757/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 assist the Court through learned APP also. [6.2] This Court is of the considered view that fair trial and fair investigation are part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is needless to say that every offence is against the State and it is the duty of the State to ensure that every investigation conducted by police must not be motivated and reckless. The Investigating Officer’s act ought to be in due obedience to the law. The accused has the right to demand a fair trial and at the same time the victim has an equally important right to a fair trial and impartial and fair investigation. Impartiality and an unbiased investigation are essential for criminal trial. The minimum requirement of rule of law is that the investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner so as to take away the basic fundamental right of the accused who as per the law is to be presumed innocent till proved guilty. At the same time a victim, would equally be entitled to a fair investigation. Defective or tainted investigation tends to shake the faith reposed by the members of the society. A tainted investigation would curtail freedom i.e. right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Fair and transparent investigation is the precursor to fair trial. The expression “fair and proper investigation” in criminal jurisprudence mainly has two imperatives. Firstly, that investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law; and secondly, the entire emphasis is to bring out the truth of the case before the court of competent jurisdiction ensuring that the guilty are punished. The Investigating Officer is a kingpin of the Criminal Justice delivery system. The investigation team heading for the investigation of serious crimes must not succumb themselves to R/CR.MA/14757/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 any kind of pressures or temptation. [6.3] Further, there is nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and applicant is behind the bars since 28.02.2026. So far as the apprehension of the learned APP as regards flight risk of the present applicant since he is resident of Rajasthan is concerned, same can be taken care of by imposing stringent condition. [6.4] Further, this Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration. [7.0] In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11191011250376 of 2025 registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with R/CR.MA/14757/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 ONE LOCAL SURETY of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; (a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; (b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week; (d) not leave the country without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned; (e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.; (f) furnish the UIDAI, present address of his residence at Rajasthan, contact number and email ID to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the same without prior permission of Trial Court; (g) not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned trial Court shall issue warrant and cancel the bail of the applicant. [8.0] The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. [9.0] Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. R/CR.MA/14757/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 [10.0] At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. [11.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/07/2026 14:30:00